PC - Minutes - 04-16-18Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 16, 'A�18
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair bang in the City Hail
Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Dang
INVOCATION — Vice -Chair Tang
ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez„ Vice -Chair Tang and Chair Dang
STAFF PRESENT -- City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, City Planner V lenzuela,,
Associate Planner Hanh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF (HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
po 4 lot*] &19' • y I
• R. N • N r r �� r
and .g - b• -r
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-01 — The State of California enacted bills that established new
regulations pertaining to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within the jurisdiction of
local agencies, and rendered the City of Rosemead's existing Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 9811 — Second Dwelling Unit Section) null and void. However, per Government Code
Section 65852.2(x)(1), a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling
units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use.
The proposed Municipal) Code Amendment (MCA 18-01) would amend Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Rosemead Municipal Code relating to ADUs. The proposed amendment would adopt new standards for
ADUs, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65852.1and Section 65852.2 of the Government
Code, and would provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17
(Zonings) of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning Commission.
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony, and
2. Adopt Planning Commission, Resolution No. 18-07 with findings, a resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 979 for the approval of MCA 118-01.
Asso6ate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and power presentafion,. Accessory Dwelling Units - Key Topics
LViscussed were:
1. Owner -Occupancy
2. Off -Street Parking Requirements for ADU's
3. Consistency with Zoning Code - Accessory Structures vs. Second Dwelling Units.
Chair Dang thanked staff and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Eng asked in regards to the owner -occupancy requirement, does it apply at the time of the submitted
application.
Associate Planner Hanh replied if the project is approved before finale clearance of the permit, a covenant must be
recorded.
Commissioner Eng asked if an owner of a property currently has a single-family home and R is a rental, and
they want to apply for an ADU, does the main dwelling have to be owner -occupied.
Associate Planner Hann replied that either the accessory dwelling unit or the main dwelling will have to be owner -
occupied.
Commissioner Eng asked so it is Ether one or the other, but not both.
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes.
Commissioner Eng asked how will the recorded transfer of the piroperty and covenant time frame requirement be
enforced or monitored.
Associate Manner Hanh replied unfortunately, there is not enough staff to monitor every property. He explained the
covenant would be recorded and if the property is sold, it would be required to disclose this to the new property
owner on the title,
Commissioner Eng stated so there is no way of verifying that has been done after the transaction has been
made. She asked it it could be included in the code that if the property is sold, that either the buyer or sailer, confirm
to the City that they are aware of this covenant and that they adhere to it.
Associate Planner Hanh replied the City of Rosemead does not require pre -purchase inspections, so unfortunately,
this cannot be done.
Commissioner Eng stated this is not a pre -purchase inspection; this would just be a statement by the property owner
that they will comply with the requirement.
Community Development Director Kim stated that the covenant itself is assurance that during an appropriate amount
of time that the owner MI abide or promise to maintain one of the units for residency.
Vice -Chair Tang stated what Commissioner Eng is trying to get to is that if there is currently a property that has an
ADU and that owner t6es to sell it, is the new owner required to enter into the covenant that is owner -occupied, or
would they be informed of that.
Community Development Director Kim stated they would be informed as part of the due diligence process when you
pull the title report. He said when you make your purchase, you get the title report and you look at all the
encumbrances that come tied with the property,, so that covenant actually carries to the new property owner for a
fixed number of years. He explained to think of it as an affordable housing project and the initial developer records a
covenant that a certain unit remains affordable for 45 to 50 years or what not. So that covenant carries regardless of
how many times that property transfers and it carries over for that X amount of years. He added once the term has
been met, it is dropped off, and released,
Vice -Chair Tang asked if the new owner will have to sign anything different from the covenant to acknowledge it.
Community Development Director Kim replied no, the original owner executes the covenant and the covenant carries
over to the new owner, virtually it is a disclosure as part of the purchasing process,
Commissioner Herrera stated it is on the title.
Commissioner Lopez asked if it is for a set amount of time or does the City require it for a period of ten to 30 years
and how it works when it comes to a timeline with a covenant,
Community Development Director Kim replied the covenant is recorded with specific language of five years or ten
years, whatever is deemed to be appropriate. So beginning from the recording date, there will be a fixed duration as
to when the covenant is valid for.
Commissioner Lopez asked if that is based on the City requirement of five to ten years or who determines the length
of time.
Community Development Director Kim replied the Planning Commission w0l make a recommendation and the City
Council will determine that,
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that time will reset with the new owner or does it carry through,
Community Development Director Karn replied no, it does not reset,
Commissioner Lopez stated but it can end, in other words, if they buy it and there are only three years left, after three
years, then there is no covenant,, as far as time!wise,,
Community Development Director Kim replied that is correct and for example, if he was to do an accessory dwelling
unit and the covenant is for ten years, then five, years, down the line, he decides to sell the property, and then the new
owner would only have five more years,.
Commissioner Herrera asked if the new owner could not rent it or only let a family member iive there,
Community Development Director Kim replied one of the units will have to be owner -occupied.
Commissioner Herrera asked what the other unit could be.
Community Development Director, Kim replied it could be, a rental.
Commissioner Eng referred to the setbacks and stated the illustration in the staff report says 25 feet, but in the
standards table, it is a minimum of ten feet for rear setback. She asked staff if that was correct.
Associate Planner Hann replied that is correct and explained the example that is on page three of the staff report is
just a potential situation and is not a catch-all example.
Commissioner Eng asked staff if there is a minimum of ten feet for a rear setback for an ADU. She also asked if
currently there is a five feet setback requirement for existing accessory structures.
Associate Manner Hanh replied it is currently three feet for existing accessory structures.
Commissioner Eng asked if that was for the rear setback.
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, for the rear,
Commissioner Eng stated a resident called her and expressed concern with privacy due to the reduced setback and
that resident would like it be 25 feet, She asked staff what was the thought process in calculating the rear setback
of ten feet,
Associate Planner Hanh repfled that originally if you just strictly follow the accessory structure, it would be three feet,
but staff thought it would protect the privacy and be safer if there was a little more buffer between properties. He
added that staff thought ten feet would be an appropriate compromise.
Commissioner Eng asked if shared car locations are like a park and ride.
Associate Planner Hann replied yes,
Vuce-Chair Tang asked for clarification of there can be two ADU units on a lot,
Associate Planner Hanh replied one single-family dwelling and one ADU would be the maximum.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if an ADU can still be a two-story as a single unit.
Associate Planner Hann replied yes.
Chair Dang thanked staff for the report and stated he has some clarifications. He referred to piggy backing on the
covenant and Exhibit "A', and read item number 6. He stated he does not want someone to come in and say they
bought this ADU from the prior owner and the prior owner lived here for five years, where the new owner has
already satisfied this five year covenant, the new owner should not have to be required to reset the, time limit for
another five additional years before they can rent it OU
Associate Planner Hanh replied they would not have to and the new owner would not have to.
Community Development Director Kjim stated they wouldn't but the way the covenants are recorded, they are very
specific, so they will have a start date and MI have a date or year when the covenant is satisfied. He added when
the covenant is pulled, staff would look at the dates and see if it is satisfied, so they would not be able to reset it,
Commissioner Eng stated it is not an evergreen covenant, so basically staff and City Council's desire is after the
project is completed to have it for that period, so if there, are any issues, they, can be addressed at that time and
hopefully during that period the concerns willl have been taken care of that had developed.
City Attorney Thuyen added this is basically a State law provision that allows the City to determine how it wants to do
its owner occupancy requirements, Certain cities have done a perpetual owner occupancy requirement and it is a
policy of City Council and staff that this would be a five year covenant, instead. He added that is a policy call, it is not
something required by State law, and is something for the City to determine.
0
Vi�ce-Chair Tang stated to add on to that question, did Community Development Director Kim say the Oty did have
the capability to reset the number of years or did he say they did not.
ability toif the City Council chooses too. He said that language MI have to be h nely written and it wouild be difficult,
City Attorney Thuyen stated it may be difficult practically to have something unless the City develops a separate
dqrff«fr
requirement, His understanding usual�y is unless it is spe6fically cafled out in the covenants, it is whatever the initial
terms are, and it just might be practicably hard to enforce if you were to try to have every subsequent owner redo a
covenant in a City prograrn with some dedicated staff to monitor
Community Developor Kim stated the City does not have an inspection requirement for the sale of a
property, so it would be impossible to implement this, He added the City would not know when properties are being
sold.
11 -SM IT T9
the owner after he builds the ADU, will execute this covenant, and the covenant obfigates a owner to hve there for
five years, He stated if he purchases a property Mth a main dwelling and goes ahead and devOops an ADU and
execute a covenant, he could sfill sell it to another individual, that �ndividual would be encumbered to live there for
five years, and he would not necessarily live there.
Chair bang questioned if he did not live than at all and it was an investment property to just develop the project, in
that particular scenario, wouW the future owner be encumbered to live there for five years,
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, that is, a possibiMy because the owner at the time would have to occupy the
home,
Chair Gang asked so whoever develops it would have to live there.
Staff and Planning Commissioners all agreed that the owner would have to We there, not necessarily the developer.
Commissioner Eng stated that one of: the units/dwellings needs to be owner -occupied, that is the whole p6rit of this
covenant. She stated that she apprecWes, the flexibility of not having the requirement in perpetuity, but her thing!, is
that they need to think of how to protect owner -occupied homes and residents in the City, She stated you can see a
lot of cities are havOg perpetual lowner-occup�ed for ADILY's and that is because of the concern for upkeep, property
value, and the quality of: life, She added five years is good but after five years, currently Rosemead has 50% owner-
occup�ed or maybe 60%, rental property, She stated as a City with prominently more rental properties, it costs us
money to maintain and upkeep. She stated the owner -occupied component is good, but she does not know about
the five years. Is the five years better than none, but it is a poficy decision, and hopefully we can give it some
thought still. Her main concern is that they need to have some protection in there for owner -occupied properties.
V�ce-Chair Tang stated he shareis the same concerns and Ml comment more during the public comment sessiom,
issue, and after it is received, it can be deliberated on, agoon on specific policy preferences on this
item.
Chair Dang stated there are property owners that have currently applied or completed ADU's and asked if their
projects are vested and they are not subjected to these new ordinances,
Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct.
Chair Dang asked if projects that have submitted plans and are waiting for planning review are those also vested
under old.
Associate, Planner Hanih, replied that is correct,
Commissioner Lopez asked if this is currently in effect.
Associate Planner Hanh replied no.
Commissioner Lopez asked if anything that corner in after the effective date will be subject to this,
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes.
Chair Dang stated as a clarification the State has its own ADU and the local jurisdictions are following it. Since the
City did not pass something, this is our first draft,
Associate Planner Hann explained this is the first draft following the ADU laws.
City Attorney Thuyen stated the purpose for this item today is for the Planning Commission's recommendation to the
City Council to adopt a local or61nance, until then the State regulations wouid apply, but once the Planning
Commission has the opportunity to deliberate and give some recommendations. The City Council would then
consider the adoption of the ordinance and then after it is adopted it will take about 30 -days for that ordinance to take
into effect.
Vice -Chale Tang asked what the main differences are between what the City had in existing and what is being
proposed this evening. He stated before the lot minimum size was 6,000 and now there is no minimum.
Associate Planner Hanh replied there is no minimum now and other main changes are that parking requirements are
more lenient and the setbacks are also more lenient,
Vice -Chair Tang asked for confirmation that this is what is included in the new proposal.
Associate Planner Hann replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang questioned if the property owners that are waiting in the queue would want to take advantage of the
upcoming changes,
Associate Planner Hanh replied that the State requirements are more lenient than these and those property owners
are probably happier following those regulations than with the new upcoming regulations.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if the State is more lenient,
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes.
Chair Dang thanked staff and opened the Public Hearing. He invited speaker request Michael Cardenas to the
podium.
11
Resident Michael Cardenas stated he is speaking on behaff of his foundation and this is simply for clarification. He
referred to the term piggy -backing and explained that someone uses this as a marketing tool to sell a house, stays
there a year, and says you take this, you get four years, and then you are in, He asked what if it is used as a
marketing tool and is piggy -backing going to be allowed, say an owner uses it for two years, uses it as a marketing
tool, and sells it to the next owner for three years. He asked if this is going to happen and if there is going to be any
piggy -backing.
City Attorney Thuyen informed Mr. Michael Cardenas that this portion of the rem is to go ahead and address all of
his concerns to the Planning Commission.
Resident Michael Cardenas replied he wili do this in list form and move on. He referred to the three-foot setback to
the rear and asked if that is hard and fast because some houses do not have that three foot setback, they are
currently In compliance with prior existing. He stated his consfituency at this point is the "Mission Community Church
UMC" and the "Sky View Church" which is attached to them on the same campus,, He asked what effect will that
have on their parking situation and are there any other restrictions that are on there that is stronger than the current
State law and of course County law, He stated those are his questions and thanked the Planning Commission for
their time.
City Attorney Thuyen stated the Chair may direct those concerns to staff and if they have a response they may go
ahead and provide them.
Chair Dang asked staff if they had a response to the piggy backing question.
Associate Planner Hanh replied as discussed before the five years if approved as is, he explained that the first
property owner would We in the dwelling for two years then the following property owner would only have to live
there for three years,
Chair Dang thanked staff and stated the second question was in regards to the three-foot setback,
Associate Planner Hanh replied that if this is approved the rear setback would be ten feet, it would not be 0owed at
three feet, and if an existing structure is already there and they want to convert it to an ADU, they wilt not have to
abide to the ten feel and can maintain the existing setback.
Chair Deng stated the third question is not relevant to this Agenda item,
Associate Planner Hann agreed.
Chair Dang asked if there was anyone else wisNng to speak or comment on thus item.
None
Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or
comments.
Commissioner Lopez stated all has been discussed and this will now be sent to the City CounO for their approval to
mandate it.
Commissioner Eng stated she would like to discuss the owner -occupancy period. She said the fact that the City has
one is good and she wonders if it is enough to protect the owner-occuftcl properties,.
wo Will
the City Council acknowledges that and it is worthwhile as a Manning Commissbn to have that 6scussiion,
Chair Dang asked staff if they had any input,
Associate Planner Hanh stated if it would make the Nanning Commission more comfortab,le at the workshops, the
City Council did mee frame at five to ten years. He added staff can revise the or6nanice to the City
Council for ten years if the Planning Commi6sion finds that more suitable.
Ccim6ssioner Eng stated in draffing the City of Rosemead ADiU Ordinance she is sure staff asked neighboring cities
they are �ni perp,tuity.
year
Vice -Chair Tang asked if there was discussion from the City Council during the workshop of owner-accuipancy in
perpetuity.
owner-occupied, there is going to be better maintenance. Sometimes you have the property owner that has been
there for a long time and it is simple for them to maintain the property and sometimes for other reasons they choose
not to. It is not necessarily 100% that owner-occupied pro;perties are better maintained than rental propert�es.
Vice-Chair Tang addressed Community DevOopment Director K�m and stated that is valuable feedback but one of
the things he considers iis the essence of their community. Typicafly owner-occupied people are more vested in their
iiw- 1% Awe",#k-W NA�OA46M tQ&A � fidA646i 1OY9AA
•
A 0
�p gp
11 1r
(lu 611 t Medri d1ijumly Uiller Inan Iflej F
on both,
Commissioner Eng addressed Commissioner Lopez and expressed that Commissioner Tang's idea is not to have a
limit on one of the units being oiwner-occulpiied. She expilained currently with the proposed ordinance ft is required
thaapplication is approved, that one of the units wilI be owner-occupor five!
years. She said Y.. is sharing with the Planning Crn that the neighboring cities have put together an
ordinance for this but they don't have that time limit.
Commissioner Lopez stated it does not matter whether there is a time limit because it only means, that there is a
time, That time could expire no matter what whether if that person buys it today or buys it in five years. He agrees
that there shoWdn't be a time because it really doesn't really matter, The covenant only means you are agreeing to
stay there for five years and anything after that it is open to anything you want to do,
Chair Dang started to refer to Com6ssioner Tang's comment.
Vice -Chair Tang stated his recommendation is to make it permanently and that there is no expiration.
Commissioner Lopez confirmed that Vice -Chair Tang is recommending that someone that owns a home to We in that
home, no matter who buys it and if someone else that buys it has to five in that home too.
Vice -Chair Tang replied yes, and that second unit can be used for a rental, multi -family use, or whatever use the
owner deems it. He expressed that in order to take advantage of these advantages listed in sense of the community,
they need to increase the stock of home ownership in the community, and right now they are outweighed from home
ownership and the rental perspective. He added having rentals may be just as benefici,ai, but home ownership and
when you have someone living there in their own home is more vested in their community.
Commissioner Lopez asked if it can be done, is it possible to ensure that no matter what happens a homeowner
needs to be living there. He added that anyone currenfly can buy a home ands rent it out if they choose to,
Commissioner Herrera statedthat there is no way to police this and an investor may not be able to buy it now unless
they say they are going to live there.
Commissioner Lopez stated he loves the idea but he does not know if it will work. He added most people do buy
homes elsewhere and rent them out, He expressed that he does agree with Vine -Chair Tang and it would be nice if
the homeowner lived there along with the ADU.
Commissioner Herrera agreed and commented it is nice to have it owner -occupied, because they have pride in home
ownership and in the community.
Vice -Chair Tang stated if it is a challenge to enforce, then in many cases a iol of the City's codes are hard to enforce
unless somebody complains or Code Enforcement gets wind of it, but at least it is down in the books. That way, if a
property has a lot of prob:lems, then Code Enforcement can go and speak with the owner and if the owner is not
there, then you know the owner is not living there. He also added that Code Enforcement can start a code case. He
said if they are rentals and there are no problems or complaints, then if is alright, but if' there are problems at least
then Code Enforcement can go back and infer to the policy that the City had established,
Commissioner Lopez stated that no one will really know unless there is a complaint.
Commissioner Herrera asked if there is a covenant issue that is out of compliance who will enforce it, will Code
Enforcement do something about it, She, added the only way you will know about it is when you take the title on it
and it will be on the title report covenant.
Commissioner Eng stated if it is recorded it wfli come up on the title report.
Commissioner Herrera stated the only one that will be concerned will be the buyer and they will ask questions while
readiing the covenant,
Commissioner Eng commented that some may comply and some may just read it and say alright.
Commissioner Herrera reiterated that an investor won't even be able to buy it because they will have to live there and
they buy it to rent it out. She added this MI be hard to enforce,
Comm,issloner Lopez stated it is worth a try and recommended sending it to the City Council. He added it will be up
to the City Council to approve.
Commissioner Herrera asked if this will) be a disclosure Rem when they go to sell the home and investors will not be
able to buy these.
IN
Vice -Chair Tang stated there is nothing preventing investors from buying them, they wiil just invest and have to live in
them.
Commissioner Herrera stated but will they live in them.
Vice -Chair Tang stated if they are consistent with the neighboring cities and establish policies then someone like a
real estate agent would know to, tell their clients that most of the cities are requiring homes to be owner -occupied'
unless the ADU is discontinued.
Commissioner Eng referred to Chair Dang's comment that the County does not having an owner-occupan
requirement and the intent of the State statute is to address hous�ng. She commented that doing this may or may ni
create more housing and unfil jurisdictions come up for more leniency for multi -housing these ADUs may have
small dent on meeting the housing needs, She added that staff has stated that the City Council would go up to t
years, she is comfortaNe with that, and recommended that the Planning Commission propose that the own
occupancy requirement to ten years,
Chair Daing stated that when hie talks about the Los Angeles County, what we do not know is if some of t
neighboring cities are part of County. He pointed out areas that are and stated that the City of Rosemead is in fa
surrounded by County properties, He added real estate value is very expensive aVeady and even getting a fixer•
�oin• to attr,
Code Enforcement. He explained that Code Enforcement will reach out to the owner so the concerns can
addressed, He recommended that theire was not a need for this, covenant to extend in perpetuity and five years
acceptabile for him, He added again that the City is surrounded by County property and youi just don't know
Commissioner Lopez stated he agreed and expressed that City Council will come up with a number. 'He said . they
n the dark zone of evervbodv out there buvin becau -
it is an open market to see what is going on. He added unless there are complaints you won't reailly see them is
know about them, five or ten years, or permanent years are fine, He commented you will not know if there is
issue unless a complaint comes in and then you can deal with it. He stated he is for the five or ten years because
is a black box and you never know what is going to happen.
Chair Danig stated if you put in the clause of having it in perpetuity or ten years it makes it unattractive for investors,
wifl be for famiiiy, but it will be that 20%i that you won't see, that you would think is that way, He added it is openi
doors for families to not be on the streets that may not be able to buy, He stated whatever the City Council comes•
witi is fite witi him.
Chair Dang asked the City Attorney if they can imake a motion but recommend that the City Council come up with a
number.
11
go ahead and adopt the recommendation but to also modify it to be ten year period as suggested by Commissioniffl-
Eng. The third option is to adopt with the suggestion to modify that period to be in perpetuity as suggested' 1
I
Cornmiss�oner Tang. He, stated those are the three options available to the Planning Commission to decide to vo
for. �
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve A. MUNICIPAL, CODE
AMENDMENT 18-01 — Adopt Planning Commiissioni Resolution No. 18-07 with, findings a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 979 for the approval of MCA 18-01.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes:
Chang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes,:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of five Ayes and 0 Noes with the
recommendation as staff presented. This item is scheduled to be presented before the City Council at the next
upcoming City Council Meeting.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve PC Minutes, 3-5-18 as
presented.
Vote, resulted in:
Ayes:
Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes-
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes.
r
1111"W11111, W
101 0, 1 . i
u
-fei 116t piuvilou �� wl cal uum eriensire 177ir om�missioner Eng io proviue I u0ifuni, E-171fielnent LIM, Me ITIFT uldt 11
of all the projects, because there are many projects that are currently in the process of discussion, pre -application
submittal,, where there is quite a bit of coordination between staff and the applicant, but those applications have not
formally been submitted. So those do not have a case number or file number, He said the list is provided and he
may address any questions that the Plann�ng Commission may have.
Commissioner Eng thanked staff for providing the Entitlement List. She stated she lives next to an alley and she is a
little frustrated because two or three of her neighbors, had put out some bulky items in the alley. She added
according to her neighbors they have called the trash disposal company and scheduled for a bulky item pick-up, it
has been three weeks and it has not been picked up. She stated that she filled in a CRM request and it was still had
12
not been picked up that morning. She explained they already have issues in the alley which is near an elementary
school and broken furniture, bulky items, and trash being dumped by the public. She added the street sweeper has
to go around the items and the alley looks like a dump alley. She reported that she contacted the City to contact the
waste disposal company and expressed that she is seeing a lot of bulky items left around the City and asked what is
going on.
Commissioner Lopez expressed he has been seeing a lot of the same tNng and explained that Republic Services
allows for five bulky items per year. Residents just need to call and request a bulky item pick-up, but he has noticed
that there are items left on the street through -out the City, so it may be that they are not calling for bulky item pick-
up.
Commissioner Eng stated that this has been for three weeks; she spoke with her neighbors, and requested that they
call the disposal company, She said her neighbors stated they did call.
Commissioner Lopez commented that something is going on with Republic Services that they are not picking up the
items.
Commissioner Herrera stated that the street sweeper also goes by and Code Enforcement follows so, they can also
note that something is not being picked up.
Commissioner Eng expressed concern that currently bulky items are being left throughout the City.
Community Development Director Kim stated he has made a note of this and will investigate the concern.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:03 pm.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 7, 018, at 7:00 pm in the
Council Chambers., I -
ATTEST :,,, ")
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
13